Week 4, NFL 2018

Normally I'm "Eh" about the Thursday night game, but this week it might've been the best game of the week.  And, I've gotta admit, the LA Rams aren't just good.  They're a fun team to watch!  They're even more fun to watch when wearing the classic LA Rams blue-and-yellow throwbacks.  Now if they would just go back to them full-time!

Thursday Night: Rams (Win)

Bengals (2-1) at Falcons (1-2): Atlanta-Atlanta has gotten off to a rocky start.  But in their defense, they've had a brutal starting schedule with three playoff teams from last season (including the Super Bowl champs).  Although, last week's shootout in New Orleans makes me think that the NFL should consider going back to 15-minute overtime periods.  The two ties and the Saints' seven-minute drive leaving on three minutes on the clock had they not scored just leads me to believe that a 10-minute overtime is too short.  As for this game, the Falcons know they need it.  Especially with the Steelers coming up next week.

Buccaneers (2-1) at Bears (2-1): Tampa Bay-Things are about to get really interesting in Tampa.  James Winston's suspension is over, but the Bucs have (wisely) decided to stick with Ryan Fitzpatrick for the time being.  But you know he's gonna be on a short leash.  We'll see if he feels under any extra pressure this week (and I don't just mean from Khalil Mack and Co.).  These two are both surprise contenders, and one of them's gonna move to 3-1 (provided that this game isn't this week's tie).

Lions (1-2) at Cowboys (1-2): Dallas-Matt Patricia finally got his first win!  And he looked like a genius in doing it.  I guess we all forgot to consider that a guy who was a Patriots' assistant for so long would know exactly everything Belichick was planning on doing.  Back to reality this week, though, as they head to Dallas.  I'm still trying to figure out the Cowboys, who got completely outplayed in Seattle.  Should be a different story for them at home, though.

Bills (1-2) at Packers (1-1-1): Green Bay-OK, who saw that coming last week?  The Bills, the consensus worst team in the league, goes into Minnesota and absolutely dominates the Vikings.  Now they head to the NFC North's other heavyweight, as the Packers look to rebound after laying an egg in Washington.  They're unbeaten at home, but that required a miracle comeback to beat the Bears and surviving for a tie against Minnesota.  We'll see how Green Bay does with a team from outside the NFC North visiting Lambeau for the first time this season.

Eagles (2-1) at Titans (2-1): Philadelphia-Philadelphia hasn't really looked like the Super Bowl champions so far.  They had one good half against the Falcons and looked OK last week.  But they certainly haven't been overly impressive by any means.  Now they head to Nashville to face a Titans team that somehow won despite scoring only nine points last week.  It'll take more than that to beat the Eagles.

Texans (0-3) at Colts (1-2): Houston-The Texans are a team badly in need of a win.  Houston's better than 0-3 and they know it.  A team this good can't be as bad as they were for most of game against the Giants last week.  Fortunately, their Week 4 opponent is Indianapolis.  If they drop this one, they might as well start planning for 2019.  Already.  It's crazy to call Week 4 a must-win, but for the Texans, it essentially is.

Dolphins (3-0) at Patriots (1-2): New England-Not only are the Dolphins in first place, they have a two-game lead.  You can bet the Patriots don't like looking up at anybody in the division, even if it is just Week 4 (although I, personally, love it).  Anyway, you can certainly bet New England is happy to be home, especially after last week's clunker in Detroit.  Miami's the only team in the AFC East that consistently manages to give the Patriots fits.  I expect that to be the case again, but I don't see New England dropping three straight, either.

Jets (1-2) at Jaguars (2-1): Jacksonville-Every time Jacksonville does something that makes you want to be a believer, they go and play the most boring NFL game you've ever seen.  They beat the Patriots, then lose a 9-6 game to the Titans where offense was clearly optional.  Now they get a Jets team that did something that no one had done since Christmas Eve 2016 (and drove the Chargers out of San Diego, where they still belong)...lose to Cleveland!  Which Jaguars team will show up?  If it's the good one, beating the Jets at home shouldn't be a problem.

Browns (1-2) at Raiders (0-3): Cleveland-How about them Cleveland Browns!  Now that the winless streak is over, can they start a winning streak?  Playing the Raiders is a good recipe for that.  Jon Gruden may be rethinking this whole return to coaching thing (although, in fairness, they did play the Rams, Chiefs and Broncos).  Call me crazy, but I'm taking Baker Mayfield on the road in his first NFL start.

Seahawks (1-2) at Cardinals (0-3): Seattle-Remember when this matchup would be circled on the calendar as potentially the one that would decide the NFC West?  Yeah, not so much anymore.  The Seahawks somewhat resembled the Seahawks of old last week.  The Cardinals actually looked pretty good for a quarter last week, too.  Then they played the other three quarters.  It's gonna be a long season in Arizona.  And I think there'll be some false hope in Seattle after the Seahawks move to 2-2 (which will still be two games behind the Rams).

Saints (2-1) at Giants (1-2): Giants-Don't ask me why I'm picking the Giants in this one.  Maybe their finally getting a win last week gave me a false sense of confidence.  Especially since the Saints are in a shootout every other week.  Although, both of those shootouts have come in division games (defense is optional in the SEC, so I guess it extends to the Southeast's NFL entries).  When they played Cleveland, they barely won 21-18.  That's why I actually think the Giants might win this.

49ers (1-2) at Chargers (1-2): Chargers-Jimmy Garoppolo's torn ACL has sent the 49ers' season all but down the drain.  Their first game post-Garoppolo takes them down the Pacific Coast Highway for a matchup with the Chargers.  The Chargers may be 1-2, but their two losses are to arguably the two best teams in football.  Beating a Garoppolo-less 49er squad at home shouldn't be much of a problem.

Ravens (2-1) at Steelers (1-1-1): Pittsburgh-That's more like it, Steelers.  Who knew that all it would take was a Monday night game for them to actually look like the Steelers again.  Sure, they almost blew it, but 1-1-1 sure looks a lot better than 0-2-1.  And they could find themselves back in their usual position of first place if Atlanta beats Cincinnati and they get their annual three-point Sunday-night win over Baltimore.

Chiefs (3-0) at Broncos (2-1): Kansas City-In 2016, these two played a Sunday night game on Christmas that I watched as I played UpWords with my mom.  It's one of the last times I spent time just me and her, so I'll always remember that game.  Kansas City won that night to establish themselves as one of the premier teams in the AFC.  That hasn't changed.  What has changed is that Denver is relevant again after missing the playoffs the last two seasons.  So this will be a good early battle for AFC West supremacy.  Denver's got a great defense, but will they be able to slow down a Kansas City offense that's scored at least 38 points in every game?  It'll be a tough proposition.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-9
Overall: 26-21-2

Jacob deGrominant & The Cy Young

Back in 2010, when it was Felix Hernandez vs. David Price for the American League Cy Young, the debate centered around whether or not Hernandez's won-loss record would hurt him in the voting.  It ultimately didn't, and Hernandez ended up winning the award despite his 13-12 record.

I was in the Price camp.  For a number of reasons.  My main argument was that if you couldn't hold Hernandez's lack of wins against him, you couldn't hold the fact that Price had 19 victories for a Rays team that won the AL East against him.  Obviously the voters saw it differently and Hernandez won the award handily, receiving 21 of the 28 first-place votes.

Fast forward eight years and I'm signing a different tune.  Because, despite his 10-9 record, I think the Mets' Jacob deGrom should win the National League Cy Young this season.  I'm not saying he will win (that 10-9 record will definitely give some of the voters pause).  But deGrom's 2018 season is much different than the one Hernandez had in 2010.  And it has nothing to do with the fact that the Mets scored a grand total of about 11 runs for him all season, either.

Mets fans will recite deGrom's stats for you ad nauseam.  And a lot of them are impressive.  His 1.70 ERA, in today's game, is absurd.  So is the fact that he gave up more than three runs in a start only once all season...when he gave up four on April 10 (in his third start of the season).  But those aren't the reasons I believe deGrom deserves the Cy Young, either.

Normally I wouldn't be backing a guy who had just 10 wins for a team that's going to finish below .500 for the Cy Young.  But deGrom has been the best pitcher in the National League for much of the season.  And it's an unusual season in that you don't have a guy from a contender jumping into the conversation as he pitches his team into the playoffs.  In fact, the Cy Young winner is almost certainly going to be from a non-playoff team.  Because it's going to either deGrom or Max Scherzer.

That's the difference.  That's why I'm suddenly on Team deGrom.  Without that playoff tiebreaker, there's very little criteria to separate the two main candidates.  So it becomes deGrom's ERA against Scherzer's everything else.  Scherzer leads the National League in wins (18), innings (220.2) and opponents' batting average (.188).  And he has that gaudy 300-strikeout number that may very well swing the vote in his favor.

Scherzer wouldn't be a bad choice.  I'd have absolutely no problem with him winning his third straight NL Cy Young.  After all, the same things you're saying can't be held against deGrom can't be held against Scherzer, either.  It's not his fault the Nationals underachieved spectacularly.  Just like it's not deGrom's fault the Mets never scored on the days he pitched.

And I can see the 10-win thing being a problem, too.  That would be the lowest win total, by far, for any starting pitcher ever to win the Cy Young.  The current low is 13, shared by Hernandez and Fernando Valenzuela, but that one comes with an asterisk since it came during the 1981 strike season.  In fact, there have even been two relievers who've won Cy Youngs with 13 or more wins. 

So the 10 would be setting new ground.  And as much as some people might want to discount pitcher wins, that's still a remarkably low number for a starter.  Especially one who was active for the entire season.  I also have no doubt that had deGrom not won his last start to finish 10-9 on the season, it would go to Scherzer hands down.  Because, no matter how dominant his numbers might've suggested, a record at or below .500 would've suggested otherwise.

But deGrom did win his last start, taking the .500 thing out of the equation.  So now it just becomes a preference between deGrom's ERA on a disappointing Mets team or Scherzer's strikeouts on a disappointing Nationals team.  They were both dominant, but in different ways.  DeGrom finessed you while Scherzer overpowered you.  Either way, you couldn't hit either one of them.

It'll be fascinating to see what the voters prefer.  If they value Scherzer's wins, he should be the favorite.  If they don't think wins are as important, their vote will probably go deGrom's way.  That precedent's already been set with Hernandez's win in the American League eight years ago.  Although, it's worth noting that the voters are two writers in each National League city, so the voting pool is completely different than it was for the 2010 AL Cy Young.

Regardless, National League Cy Young will be the most intriguing vote of the eight major MLB Awards.  Jacob deGrom's season is over.  Max Scherzer has one start left.  Then the debate will begin.  My vote would go to deGrom.  We'll see what the writers decide.

Let's Sack the New Sack Rule

Now that the NFL has established what a catch is, the new most confusing play in football is the sack.  Not the sack itself.  It's pretty obvious when one of those occurs.  No, it's whether or not a sack carries a 15-yard personal foul penalty with it.

One of the NFL's points of emphasis for officials this season is roughing the passer penalties.  Specifically, they don't want defenders to land with their weight on the quarterback.  Which is easier said than done.

That part of the rule has actually been in place since 1995, but it only became a point of emphasis after Aaron Rodgers broke his collarbone when Vikings linebacker Anthony Barr fell on him last season.  And that point of emphasis has definitely been emphasized.  Thru Week 3, they've called 34 roughing the passer penalties.  That's more than 11 a week!  There were a total of 109 such calls all of last season, an average of 6.4 per week.  So, because of the new emphasis, roughing the passer penalties have nearly doubled.

This prevalence of roughing the passer calls has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.  Jerry Jones isn't a fan.  He used some sort of boxing analogy while referring to it in his weekly appearance on a Dallas radio show.  Jones isn't on the competition committee, but they're not happy either.  The competition committee will discuss it on a conference call next week, but they aren't sure anything will happen during the season.  Although, they did start officiating plays differently after the first two preseason games, so you never know.

The problem isn't so much the rule itself.  It's the ambiguity in the interpretation.  Plays that were legal last year (and all other previous seasons) are now suddenly a 15-yard penalty.  It's very difficult for defenders to figure out how to make the tackle (the way they've always made it!) without getting called for a penalty.  And how much body weight constitutes "too much"?

For example, Clay Matthews has gotten flagged for roughing the passer in each of the Packers' first three games.  The first one against the Bears was a clear roughing the passer.  But he's gotten flagged for two that are highly questionable in the last two weeks.  In the tie game against Minnesota, he was called for roughing the passer on a play where he wrapped Kirk Cousins around the midsection before driving him to the ground and landing next to him.  That controversial call negated a Packers interception.

While the league defended its ruling on that play and even included it in the teaching video for the following week, I have no idea how Matthews' sack of Alex Smith on Sunday constitutes a penalty.  To me, this is just a good football play.  I've watched it at least 10 times and I still have no idea how this is a penalty.  Yet, according to the officials, it's 15 yards for roughing the passer.

Obviously the NFL defended the call there, too, but Matthews didn't mix words when he was asked about it, saying the league is "getting soft."  He said to the Green Bay Press Gazette, "Unfortunately this league's going in a direction I think a lot of people don't like.  The only thing hard about this league is the fines they levy down on guys like me who play the game hard."

Referee Craig Wrolstad, who threw the flag, told reporters after the Redskins game that he thought Matthews could've done more to avoid the penalty, but he disagrees.  In that same Green Bay Press Gazette interview, Matthews said, "Obviously when you're tackling a guy from the front, you're gonna land on him.  I understand the spirit of the rule, I said that weeks prior.  But when you have a hit like that, that's a football play."  I 100 percent agree.

Worse, players have gotten injured trying to avoid the penalty on a sack.  Dolphins defensive end William Hayes tore his ACL when his foot got caught underneath him as he tried to roll off Raiders quarterback Derek Carr on Sunday.  Obviously, he's out for the season, which Miami Head Coach Adam Gase confirmed on Monday.

To put it more succinctly, I turn to ESPN's Trey Wingo and 49ers cornerback Richard Sherman.  Wingo: "So in attempt to keep a QB safe...a DL's season is over."  Sherman, who has never been shy when it comes to criticizing the league, in response: "They don't care about the rest of us getting hurt.  Long as the QB is safe."

Unfortunately, I think Sherman's right.  Quarterback is obviously the marquee position in football.  But what happens if it's not a no-name Dolphins defensive end that gets hurt and it's J.J. Watt or Khalil Mack or Aaron Donald or even Clay Matthews instead?

Most of the NFL's rule changes regarding player safety are designed to protect offensive players.  Helmet-to-helmet hits on a "defenseless receiver" were a big thing for a long time.  They've fortunately modified that rule a little bit so that offensive players can't lead with the helmet anymore.  But the point remains, all of these plays result in a penalty for the defense, but who's out there protecting the defensive players from getting hurt?

And, frankly, was the old rule really that bad?  Yes, it sucked that Aaron Rodgers got hurt on a sack last season.  But that play was a penalty then, and it still would be now.  It seems like there was very little reason to overreact and change the interpretation.  Especially since it's resulting in an abundance of penalties.  And I'm sure Hayes' injury won't be the last, either.  Neither of which is something anybody wanted.

Postseason Roster Decisions

It's been a while since I've talked about the Yankees, but with the postseason on the horizon, I figured now's as good a time as any.  Especially since they're going to have some decisions on their hands when it comes to figuring out roster spots.  A task that might've gotten a whole lot easier now that Didi Gregorius and Aaron Hicks are potentially out injured.

Since they can change the roster between the Wild Card Game and the Division Series, I fully expect them to do that.  After all, there's no need for all four starting pitchers to be on the roster against Oakland.  Aaron Boone has hinted that the decision on who's starting is between Masahiro Tanaka, Luis Severino and J.A. Happ (who'll be on normal rest), so it's safe to say CC Sabathia at the very least won't be on the roster for the Wild Card Game.  My guess is it'll be CC and another pitcher kept off so that they can take two extra position players for pinch hitting/pinch running/defense duty.

But here's where it gets interesting.  Who do you take off between the Wild Card Game and the Division Series?  Assuming they were to do 13 position players (one more than in the regular season), that means a four-man bench.  Austin Romine obviously gets one of those spots as the backup catcher, and, as it stands, Brett Gardner would be the odd-man out in the outfield, which relegates him to the bench.

That leaves two spots for three guys--Neil Walker, Adeiny Hechavarria and Greg Bird.  I think it's safe to say Walker would make the team.  He's been with the Yankees all year, is versatile, and is a switch-hitter.  He's also had some clutch moments, which leads me to believe he'd be a lock.

The Hechavarria-Bird decision is a complicated one, though.  Bird has lost his job as the starting first baseman.  In fact, he barely even plays.  And when he does, he either strikes out or grounds into a double play.  Plus, he can only play first base.  Hechavarria, meanwhile, is a very good defender who can play both positions on the left side of the infield.  Walker can also play second and third, though, and Gleyber can shift over to short, so you really don't need both Walker and Hechavarria in that respect.  And the main reason they got Hechavarria in the first place was to give them an everyday shortstop while Didi was on the DL.

Well, we might end up seeing that situation happen again.  Fate might've made that decision for them.  Because Didi Gregorius is currently on the shelf.  He says he'll be fine for the playoffs, but it seems like too much of a risk not to include Hechavarria on the roster if Gregorius may not be 100 percent.  Now the question becomes whether you take the chance Didi can play and put him on the roster or you hold him out and go with Bird, at least for the Division Series.

For the Wild Card Game, this isn't a problem, since Hechavaria/Bird can take Sabathia's not-needed roster spot.  I'm actually inclined to think either Ronald Torreyes or Tyler Wade will also be on the Wild Card Game roster as an extra bench guy, since you only need so many bullpen guys in a one-game playoff.

Speaking of the bullpen guys, we know six of the eight relievers who'll be on the postseason roster--Aroldis Chapman (who may or may not be closing games again by that point), Dellin Betances, David Robertson, Zach Britton, Chad Green and Jonathan Holder.  It also seems likely that Lance Lynn will be the starter that gets sent to the bullpen for the playoffs, so that's seven.

As for the last spot in the bullpen, that looks like a choice between Tommy Kahnle and A.J. Cole, neither of whom has been very effective recently.  I'm not including Sonny Gray as an option, since I think even he knows he has no shot at making the playoff roster.  

My initial thought is that Cole would get the last bullpen spot, but, if Lynn is serving as the long man, that reduces the need for an innings-eater.  Plus, Cole hasn't just been ineffective recently.  He's been outright bad.  "Outright bad" is also how you can describe much of Kahnle's season, a lot of which was spent in Triple-A, though.  However, he was on the team last year, so he's accustomed to pitching those high-leverage postseason innings.  And when Kahnle's on, he's very tough to hit.  If it were me, Kahnle would get the nod.  Either way, either Kahnle or Cole will be the last guy in the bullpen.

Finally, there's the question of the starting pitchers.  Tanaka has been the Yankees' best starter for much of September, but Happ has been just as effective, and Severino has started to flash his early-season form recently.  He didn't get out of the first inning in last year's Wild Card Game, though, so that's another thing worth considering.

Personally, I think I'd go with Happ.  Next Wednesday will be his regular day in the rotation, so you don't have to finagle things to get anybody extra rest (although, I think it's highly unlikely this weekend's series in Fenway will be little more than glorified Spring Training for both teams).  Although, one of the reasons they got Happ was his success against the Red Sox, so I can see him being held for Game 1 of the Division Series so that he can start twice against Boston, leaving Tanaka to start the Wild Card Game against Oakland.

Whoever starts the Wild Card Game is important.  Because he wouldn't be able to start again until Game 3 of the Division Series at the earliest.  So, if Happ starts the Wild Card Game, you've got the lefties going back-to-back at Yankee Stadium (which I actually don't think is a bad thing).  I also think Tanaka can handle pitching twice against Sale in Fenway (Games 1 & 5) without batting an eye.  Another reason why I say J.A. Happ pitches the Wild Card Game.

So, here's my roster for the Wild Card Game:

Pitchers-J.A. Happ (starter), Dellin Betances, Zach Britton, Aroldis Chapman, A.J. Cole, Chad Green, Jonathan Holder, Tommy Kahnle, Lance Lynn, David Robertson, Masahiro Tanaka

Catchers-Gary Sanchez, Austin Romine

Infielders-Luke Voit, Gleyber Torres, Didi Gregorius, Miguel Andujar, Greg Bird, Adeiny Hechavarria, Neil Walker

Outfielders-Andrew McCutchen, Aaron Hicks, Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton, Brett Gardner

And for the Division Series:

Pitchers-Masahiro Tanaka (Game 1), Luis Severino (Game 2), J.A. Happ (Game 3), CC Sabathia (Game 4), Dellin Betances, Zach Britton, Aroldis Chapman, Chad Green, Jonathan Holder, Tommy Kahnle, Lance Lynn, David Robertson

Catchers-Gary Sanchez, Austin Romine

Infielders-Luke Voit, Gleyber Torres, Didi Gregorius, Miguel Andujar, Adeiny Hechavarria, Neil Walker

Outfielders-Andrew McCutchen, Aaron Hicks, Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton, Brett Gardner

Week 3, NFL 2018

Through two weeks, the NFL has been turned upside down.  The top two teams in most power rankings right now are the Rams and Jaguars.  We're also getting a weekly tie now (which I hope doesn't become a new thing).  And even the Browns have a win!

Thursday Night: Cleveland (Win)

Saints (1-1) at Falcons (1-1): Atlanta-What's this?!  An NFC South game before December?!  What a novel concept!  It'll be a big one, too, with all three of last year's playoff teams surprisingly looking up at Tampa Bay.  Atlanta should really be 2-0.  New Orleans is lucky to not be 0-2.  Then you throw in the fact that this game is being played in Atlanta, and you can count on the Falcons taking it.

49ers (1-1) at Chiefs (2-0): Kansas City-OK, I was wrong about Patrick Mahomes.  He certainly appears to be the real deal.  And the Chiefs, once again, look like one of the best teams in the league.  San Francisco got its first win of the Kyle Shanahan Era last week against Detroit.  The Chiefs are a better team than the Lions, though.  This'll be a tough one for San Francisco.

Raiders (0-2) at Dolphins (2-0): Miami-The Miami Dolphins are in first place in the AFC East.  Just take a second to let that sink in.  For the Raiders, meanwhile, Jon Gruden's return hasn't quite gone as they expected.  Perhaps they miss Khalil Mack more than they were willing to let on.  I've been surprised by how strong Miami has looked.  Considering how bad the Raiders have been, I see Miami getting to 3-0.

Bills (0-2) at Vikings (1-0-1): Minnesota-One thing I think we can pretty much all agree on is that Buffalo is one of the worst, if not the worst, team in football.  The Bills are really bad.  The Vikings are not.  If not for two missed field goals in overtime last week, they'd be 2-0.  Make that 3-0.  Because I don't see any way Minnesota loses to them at home.

Colts (1-1) at Eagles (1-1): Philadelphia-Frank Reich returns to Philadelphia for the first time as Colts coach on the same day Carson Wentz returns to the Eagles' lineup.  I can understand why they wanted to make the move back to Wentz after that lackluster performance in Tampa last week.  Reich's reunion is a fun little added storyline.  He'll get his ring, and they'll celebrate his brilliant play call on that trick-play TD pass to Nick Foles.  Then Foles will watch from the sidelines as Wentz leads the Eagles to victory.

Packers (1-0-1) at Redskins (1-1): Green Bay-A miracle comeback and a tie.  Certainly not what we expected from the Packers in the first two games of their 100th season.  Now they hit the road and head out of the division for the first time.  The Redskins, meanwhile, face an actual opponent for the first time this season.  They crushed Arizona in Week 1, then went home and laid an egg against the Colts.  We'll see how things go against Green Bay.

Bengals (2-0) at Panthers (1-1): Cincinnati-Well, look at that.  The Cincinnati Bengals are 2-0 and in first place.  It's seems like forever since they've played, but that was a complete effort against the Ravens last Thursday.  This will be a big road test against a good Panther team, but Carolina hasn't really impressed me that much so far.  For some reason, I see Cincinnati pulling out the victory.

Titans (1-1) at Jaguars (2-0): Jacksonville-That was a BIG statement the Jaguars made last week.  Now they need to follow up their victory over New England with a solid performance against the Titans.  Otherwise, beating the Patriots will matter very little.  Since it would give Tennessee an early division tiebreaker.  Don't count on that happening.

Broncos (2-0) at Ravens (1-1): Denver-Denver and Baltimore.  One has been reinvigorated by its free agent QB.  The other has its fans itching to see their rookie.  The Ravens have had plenty of time to consider what went wrong in Cincinnati, but I'm not sure if they have the answers.  The Broncos, meanwhile, hit the road for the first time, so we'll see how Case Keenum does outside of the mile-high air.  I think he'll do fine.

Giants (0-2) at Texans (0-2): Houston-Both of these 0-2 teams are badly in need of a win.  The Texans just had bad luck with the schedule, starting at New England and at Tennessee.  The Giants, meanwhile, have had trouble scoring despite having both Odell Beckham and Saquon Barkley.  Against J.J. Watt and Co., things won't get any easier on that front.  Don't count on the Texans dropping their home opener.

Chargers (1-1) at Rams (2-0): Rams-Bold prediction: LA will win.  This is the first meeting between these teams since they've begun sharing the city, and the next time they play, it'll be in their shared stadium.  They're also both among the best teams in the league.  I don't disagree with those rankings that have the Rams at No. 1.  They're really good.  And they'll be 3-0 by day's end.

Bears (1-1) at Cardinals (0-2): Chicago-For the first time this season, the Chicago Bears are actually playing on a Sunday afternoon.  I'm still not sure why the NFL decided that America wanted to watch them nationally in prime time in each of the first two weeks.  The fourth quarter has been a problem for this team so far.  They should've beaten Green Bay if not for a fourth quarter collapse.  Then they held on against Seattle only because their lead was big enough.  Fortunately, the Cardinals aren't a very good team, so they should be able to hold on to a fourth quarter lead again this week.

Cowboys (1-1) at Seahawks (0-2): Dallas-It wasn't too long ago that this was a marquee matchup that you circled on your calendar.  Not so much anymore.  Because the Seahawks, while they might not want to admit it, are in a full-scale rebuild.  Dallas isn't that much better.  The Cowboys will have trouble scoring points all season unless they can find some other sort of offensive option.  The good news is Ezekiel Elliott will be enough to beat Seattle.

Patriots (1-1) at Lions (0-2): New England-My, oh my, the Detroit Lions have been tough to watch.  First, they get smoked on the opening Monday night against a Jets team that we've all seen isn't actually as good as they looked that day.  And now we're subjected to them on a Sunday night against a Patriots team that hasn't lost back-to-back games in like 10 years.  Don't count on that changing.  I have no idea why NBC and the NFL decided this should be a Sunday night game.  Because it won't be a particularly good one.

Steelers (0-1-1) at Buccaneers (2-0): Pittsburgh-Are the Steelers really this bad?  I don't think so.  Are the Bucs really this good?  I don't think so, either.  But Ryan Fitzpatrick has been the MVP over the first two weeks and Pittsburgh has looked like anything but a Super Bowl contender.  As a result, they find themselves in last place (behind even the Browns!).  For some reason, I think the Steelers begin to rebound on Monday night.

This Week: 1-0

Last Week: 9-6-1

Overall: 19-12-1

Russia Reinstated

I'm sure you seen by now that WADA has made the decision to reinstate the Russian Anti-Doping Agency.  The news that it was likely broke last week, and all today's meeting did was rubber stamp that decision and make it official.  This despite Russia still not meeting two of the criteria that had been set forth for their reinstatement.

Those two criteria had previously been loosened, though, making the road to reinstatement easier.  WADA must be given access to the Moscow lab.  If they aren't by Dec. 31 and/or allow for samples to be retested by June 30, Russia will again be declared non-compliant.  The second was the acknowledgment of the findings in the McLaren Report (the one that led to their suspension in the first place).  That requirement seems to have been dropped, although Russia did sign a letter admitting to wrongdoing, but taking much of the onus off the government.

Naturally, the decision wasn't met with enthusiasm by everyone.  The vote was 9-2 with one abstention, and WADA Vice President Linda Helleland, one of the "No" votes, has said the decision "casts a dark shadow over the credibility" of the organization.  Meanwhile, Beckie Scott, a Canadian Olympic champion in cross country skiing, resigned from WADA last week in protest.  You also had the two holier-than-thou American-based critics, Travis Tygart and Grigor Rodchenkov, chime in with their two cents.

Plenty of athlete groups around the world have been outspoken in their disappointment with WADA's decision, as well.  From an athlete's perspective, I get it.  They were the ones robbed of Olympic medals and other opportunities because of Russian doping.  However, and here's where it gets tricky, how much are the athletes to blame for that?  In East Germany back in the day, they weren't given a choice!

That criticism was inevitable whenever WADA decided to lift Russia's suspension.  And it's a cloud that's going to hang over Russian athletes--all Russian athletes--for a while.  It's not necessarily fair.  But it's reality.

Here's the thing, though.  In order for Russia to get redemption and work its way back to acceptance, RUSADA needed to be reinstated.  Russian athletes need the ability to prove they're clean, but how are they supposed to do that when they can't be drug tested?!  People have every reason to be skeptical of the Moscow lab, but this is a classic catch-22 situation.  Russian athletes are guilty until proven innocent, but they have no way of proving their innocence!

Did WADA jump the gun and reinstate Russia too early?  Perhaps.  But these critics weren't going to be happy whenever it was lifted.  And I'm not even sure they realize the contradiction they're advocating.  They're pushing for "clean" sport while also fighting to keep an entire nation completely excluded.  Meanwhile, many of the athletes who they're so eager to prevent from competing are guilty of nothing more than being Russian.

Don't get me wrong.  Russia deserved to be suspended.  And I think the IOC's Russia suspension was a joke.  Letting them send an entire team, just under that stupid "OAR" designation, is NOT a suspension.  And you could tell how reluctant the IOC was to even do that when Russia was reinstated two days after the PyeongChang Games ended.

To their credit, WADA understood that the reinstatement wouldn't be received well by everyone.  WADA President Craig Reedie realizes the decision "will not please everybody," but also claimed that WADA is now "in a much better position."  He also gets that athletes will be wary to accept competing against Russians.  And they're completely justified to worry.  After all, they're the ones who were denied spots in the Olympics or Olympic medals because of Russian doping.

Although, Janez Kocijancic, the President of the European Olympic Committees and one of the nine "Yes" votes, said that prolonging the suspension wouldn't serve to benefit anyone, either.  He noted that a key part of compliance is making sure that the rules are being complied with.  And it's tough to prove you're complying with the rules when you're not even given a chance to!  He also cautioned that extending the ban too long would effectively turn it into a sanction, and sanctions aren't good for anybody.

Besides, the Russian "suspension" was becoming borderline ridiculous.  Not only did you have the ridiculous "OAR" designation in PyeongChang, you've got Russian athletes competing with no restrictions in pretty much every sport!  And that "ANA" thing in track & field is nearly as stupid as "OAR".  If you've determined that they're clean and are eligible to compete, stop making them be athletes without a country.  It's got nothing to do with them.

Despite WADA's announcement, the IAAF and IPC have made it clear that this doesn't mean they're in any rush to reinstate Russia.  They have their own criteria that the Russians must meet in order to be reinstated to those organizations.  Although, with the Moscow lab being reopened, that's just a matter of time.  I fully expect a full Russian team to be competing at the 2019 World Championships in Doha, as well as the Tokyo Paralympics.

This is a messy situation all around.  It has been for three years.  But I don't agree with those who are calling for some sort of indefinite Russian suspension.  Because that isn't fair either.  What the Russian Olympic Committee did was horrible, especially because so many clean athletes were cheated.  Athletes who have every reason to be upset about it.  However, it's also unfair for every Russian athlete to immediately be labeled a "cheater" just because of the flag on their uniform.

Russia's rehabilitation is going to be a long process.  And it's not going to be an easy one.  Which is why that process needed to get started.  Everyone needs to heal.  And the only way for that healing to begin was for Russia to be reinstated.

One Hall of a Letter

I don't know what to make of the letter that circulated today from the group of Pro Football Hall of Famers led by Eric Dickerson.  It was sent to the NFL offices, Hall of Fame President C. David Baker, and NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith demanding, among other things health insurance and a salary for all Hall of Fame members and threatening a boycott of the induction ceremonies, which is a big deal considering the NFL's 100th anniversary is coming up in 2020.

The letter was signed by a number of high-profile Hall of Famers, including 13 members of the newly-formed Hall of Fame Board.  A board that evidently includes Jerry Rice and Kurt Warner, both of whom had no idea they "signed" the letter.  Rice even took to Twitter to clarify that, while he supports their cause, he's NOT a member of the Hall of Fame Board and has no plans on boycotting induction ceremonies.  Dickerson later took responsibility for the miscommunication.

Taken directly from the opening of the letter: "We, the undersigned Pro Football Hall of Famers, were integral to the creation of the modern NFL, which in 2017 generated $14 billion in revenue.  But when the league enshrined us as the greatest ever to play America's most popular sport, they gave us a gold jacket, a bust and a ring--and that was it."

It continued: "To build this game, we sacrificed our bodies.  In many cases, and despite the fact we were led to believe otherwise, we sacrificed our minds.  We believe we deserve more.  We write to demand two things: Health insurance and an annual salary for all Hall of Famers that includes a share of league revenues."

Here's where I'm torn.  They have a point.  But their demands, especially the one for a salary, seem a bit excessive.  Seriously, why should the NFL pay them a salary just because they're in the Hall of Fame?  That's absurd!  No Hall of Famers in any sport receive a salary.  Not baseball.  Not basketball.  Not hockey.  So why should the Pro Football Hall of Fame be any different?  It's a preposterous claim!  Especially since Reggie White's wife signed the letter, so you know they're including deceased players.

And, they all get a pension anyway!  I have no idea how much the pension is per player, but every former NFL player, Hall of Famer or not, has received one since 1959.  There's also a 401K and an annuity.  The pension, meanwhile, has gone up three times since 2011.  The owners have since established the "Legacy Fund" as well, which increased benefits by $620 million, with the owners' contribution coming out of their share of league revenues.

Now, I'm not gonna get into their complaint about the Commissioner's salary (although, $40 million is kinda ridiculous) or their criticism of the $1 billion Hall of Fame Village that's currently under construction in Canton.  But it certainly does feel like they're simply making a play to get a piece of the pie.  Which, again, is a little unwarranted.  Especially since they've, for the most part, have plenty of money already.  And, most if not all, have sources of income other than their NFL pensions!

Although, it doesn't seem like the salary isn't the heart of the issue.  It seems to me that their biggest concern is health insurance.  And that one is much more reasonable.  Because they're right.  Everyone knows the long-term effects that playing football can cause, so they do deserve lifetime health care benefits, whether that comes from the league or the union or the Hall of Fame or some combination of the three.

Dickerson spelled out the exact cost of health insurance for every Hall of Famer in the letter.  He figured it would cost the league less than $4 million a year, which is less than a 30-second Super Bowl commercial.  Or, roughly three cents for every $100 the league generates.  When put in those terms, those health insurance costs don't really seem like a lot.  And there is probably some sort of happy medium that can be reached in that regard.

One of their main goals appears to be just that.  They want health insurance for all former NFL players, not just Hall of Famers.  Beyond just what's included in the pension.  Beyond the lump sum they receive from the concussion settlement.  Reasonable, lasting health care paid for by the NFL.  I have no idea how much that would actually cost the league, but it does seem like there's definitely a number that can be reached.

Bottom line is it might've come off as somewhat greedy, but I think the point of the letter was more to bring these issues to light.  And, as Dickerson correctly pointed out, this is about more than just those lucky enough to have earned football's highest honor.  It's about "all my offensive linemen who blocked for me, the tight ends, receivers, and everyone I played with."  It's simply a matter of giving those former players a voice.  And people are more likely to pay attention when it's the Hall of Famers spreading the message.

And I doubt they'll follow through on their threat to boycott the induction ceremonies, especially the one that'll kick off the Centennial Season.  Even if they do, this is just a small group of Hall of Famers.  The others will surely be there.  I have a feeling they'll be joined by Eric Dickerson and Co., too.  This letter was designed to get a point across and start a conversation.  Point made.  Now get talking and come up with a solution.

Week 2, NFL 2018

Last week sure was an interesting start to the NFL season.  We had our first Week 1 tie since 1971, a ridiculous comeback in Green Bay, some rookies impressing, and all seven rookie head coaches losing.  The good news is with the Lions playing the 49ers this week, we're almost guaranteed to have at least one of them win this week (although, as the Steelers and Browns showed us, it's not a 100 percent certainty).

Thursday Night: Cincinnati (Win)

Panthers (1-0) at Falcons (0-1): Atlanta-Should the Falcons have beaten the Eagles in the opener?  Probably.  But the fact that they lost shouldn't really have too much of a lingering effect (unless, of course, that head-to-head loss to the Eagles ends up coming into play).  The Panthers were impressive in their opener.  But Dallas wasn't, so how much of that was the Panthers and how much of it was the Cowboys?  I guess we'll find out this week, when I'm sure Carolina will give a little bit extra after the hurricane.  Atlanta, though, knows the importance of being either tied with the Panthers or two games behind them.

Chargers (0-1) at Bills (0-1): Chargers-My brother-in-law has decided that he's just taking whoever's playing the Bills in his survival pool each week.  It's not a terrible strategy.  Because clearly that performance by Buffalo last week didn't inspire much confidence.  They definitely looked like the worst team in the league in Week 1.  They'll be better in their home opener.  Only because they can't be much worse.

Vikings (1-0) at Packers (1-0): Green Bay-What's left to say about Aaron Rodgers?  The guy is truly remarkable.  He hasn't practiced all week after that ridiculous comeback against the Bears.  Does that matter?  I'm still fairly certain he'll start.  And I'm still fairly certain he'll do another spectacular Aaron Rodgers thing.  And not only will it make Green Bay 2-0, it'll make the Packers 2-0 in the division, with a head-to-head win over the Vikings.

Texans (0-1) at Titans (0-1): Houston-I think the Titans-Dolphins game is finally over!  It's not totally fair to judge the Titans based on that totally odd situation last week in Miami.  But they did blow a fourth-quarter lead and lost to a Dolphins team that they probably should beat.  Now they play DeShaun Watson and Houston.  Yes, the Texans are also 0-1.  But they played the Patriots in Foxboro!  A healthy Houston team is better than Tennessee.

Browns (0-0-1) at Saints (0-1): New Orleans-Cleveland didn't lose last week!  True, the Browns didn't win either.  But not losing was the first step for this team, and they definitely had their chances, too.  The Saints, meanwhile, had no problem putting up points.  Their defense was a bit of a problem, though.  After all, they made Ryan Fitzpatrick look like a freakin' All-Pro.  I'm expecting better from New Orleans this week.  It'll be close, but I think the Saints hang on for the win.

Dolphins (1-0) at Jets (1-0): Miami-Clearly starting Sam Darnold in Week 1 was a good call.  Wow!  That was an impressive performance on Monday night!  Is it all smoke and mirrors, though?  We'll find out in the Jets' home opener.  I also have no clue how good Miami actually is.  That was just a weird game.  But they showed some nice resilience in coming out of those seven hours with a victory.  If they can do that, a game that takes a normal amount of time should be a piece of cake.

Chiefs (1-0) at Steelers (0-0-1): Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh always beats Kansas City.  It's six out of seven for the Steelers over the Chiefs.  I don't know why, but this matchup always goes to the black and gold, no matter what the state of each team is entering the game.  Although, this is a bit of a must-win for the Steelers, too.  They didn't beat the Browns, and a loss this week would already put them a game and a half back of the first-place Bengals.  Do you really think Ben Roethlisberger is gonna let that happen?

Eagles (1-0) at Buccaneers (1-0): Philadelphia-Remember when these two met in the playoffs like four years in a row?  That has nothing to do with anything.  It's just the first thing I thought of when I saw the Eagles-Bucs matchup.  Philadelphia was shaky in the first half of its opener, but in the second half they sure looked like the defending Super Bowl champions.  Tampa Bay, meanwhile.  Where did that come from?  Will they put up points nearly as easily against the Eagles' defense?  Probably not.

Colts (0-1) at Redskins (1-0): Washington-Alex Smith was better than I thought he'd be in his first game with the Redskins.  Sure, some of that might've been a result of playing the Cardinals, but so what if it was?  And they're playing the Colts this week, so the chances of him looking that good again are strong.  Indianapolis has Andrew Luck back, but all that did was turn them from a terrible football team into a bad one.  The Redskins continue to take advantage of their soft early schedule and go to 2-0.

Cardinals (0-1) at Rams (1-0): Rams-It was after I had already gone to bed, but that must've been an impressive second-half performance by the Rams on Monday night.  Now they head to the Coliseum for their home opener against a Cardinals team that struggled to do much of anything against Washington.  I doubt they'll be able to do much against LA, either.  The Rams have arguably the best defense in the NFC.  Arizona's offense simply isn't good enough to compete with it.

Lions (0-1) at 49ers (0-1): San Francisco-Former Patriots quarterback Jimmy Garroppolo will be reunited with Matt Patricia, his former coordinator in New England.  Patricia's debut as a head coach didn't go very well.  They made the Jets look like Alabama to their Texas Southern.  The 49ers also lost, but they were at least competitive in Minnesota.  The Lions, coming off an embarrassing loss, on a short week, flying cross country, doesn't look like a recipe for a win.  I'm taking Kyle Shanahan as the first rookie head coach to pick up a victory.

Raiders (0-1) at Broncos (1-0): Denver-Have they done it?  Have the Broncos actually found a real, life NFL quarterback?  It sure looked like it last week, as Case Keenum carved up Seattle's once-vaunted defense.  I don't know what happened to the Raiders on Monday night (again, I was asleep), but things don't get any easier in Jon Gruden's first AFC West divisional game in 17 years.

Patriots (1-0) at Jaguars (1-0): New England-An early-season AFC Championship Game rematch.  The Jaguars almost pulled it off last year.  They were five minutes away from the Super Bowl when Brady did his thing.  They're eager to prove they belong on the same field as New England, and they'll get a chance to show it.  Jacksonville will probably be outclassed, though.  This is the type of game where the Patriots usually make a statement of their own and it's a blowout by halftime.

Giants (0-1) at Cowboys (0-1): Giants-Our annual Week 1 Giants-Cowboys Sunday night game was pushed back a week.  And they both come into it at 0-1.  But they're vastly different 0-1's.  The Giants have to be encouraged by their performance against the Jaguars.  And the Dallas defense isn't nearly as good as Jacksonville's.  The Cowboys, meanwhile, really miss Dez Bryant and Jason Witten.  They need to figure out something offensively or they'll have trouble scoring all year.  Even worse, they could end up 0-2 by the end of the night.

Seahawks (0-1) at Bears (0-1): Chicago-Hopefully someone reminded the Bears that games are FOUR quarters long, not three.  There's really no way to explain what happened to them last week.  They just have to move on from it.  And they can be really happy they have their new toy Khalil Mack.  They can also be happy that they're playing a Seattle team that's the shell of Seahawks past.  I'd also like somebody to please explain to me why the Chicago Bears, who've finished last four years in a row, went 5-11 last season, have a new head coach, and haven't been to the playoffs since 2010, got two national prime time games to start he season!

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-6-1
Overall: 10-6-1

Daylight Savings Time In Japan

This summer was one of the hottest in history in Tokyo.  The daytime temperatures were hovering near 100 for days at a time, and meteorologists warned that the searing heat is typical for Japan in late July/early August, so it can be expected again two years from now when Tokyo hosts the Olympics.  Which has led to some people asking why the Olympics are being held at the hottest time of the year.

When Tokyo first hosted the Olympics in 1964, they were held in October to avoid both the summer heat and the September typhoon season.  A lot has changed since 1964, though.  And holding an Olympics in October is impossible now.

The obvious reason for this is television.  The IOC gets most of its money from the various TV contracts around the world (NBC is their biggest revenue source), so it's understandable that they take what TV wants into consideration.  And both NBC and the European broadcasters want the Summer Olympics to actually take place in the summer, when they have absolutely nothing else going on!

If the Olympics were held in the fall, they wouldn't be able to dedicate hours upon hours to coverage because it's football season in both the U.S. (college and the NFL) and Europe (professional soccer).  And, if you were to push them back to October, you're dealing with postseason baseball, too.  That simply doesn't work for these networks that paid millions (or, in NBC's case, billions) of dollars for Olympic TV rights.

And why do you think the Winter Olympics are always in February?  Yes, that's usually the optimal time weather-wise in the host city (Sochi notwithstanding), but it's also the best time for the TV partners.  The Super Bowl is right before they start (although, in 2022, the Winter Olympics start before the Super Bowl for the first time, which I'm sure NBC is not too pleased about) and they're over in time for March Madness.  That's not by accident.

TV is the exact same reason the World Cup is always held in the summer, too.  Which is one of the reasons the scheduling for Qatar 2022 is incredibly inconvenient.  When they were bidding for the rights, FOX was expecting it to be played in the summer.  Instead, it's right smack in the heart of football season, and they have to try and schedule the World Cup around it.  As compensation, FIFA gave them the rights to 2026 for free (even though, with that World Cup set for North America, they would've made a fortune bidding it out).

Putting this into a historical context (and bringing it back to Tokyo's first Games in 1964), the Olympics haven't always been in the now-standard July/August timetable.  The 1956 Olympics in Melbourne actually took place in November and December, right in the middle of the Australian summer.  Meanwhile, two consecutive Olympics in the 60s, both Tokyo and Mexico City 1968, took place in October.  Then the 1972 Munich Games started in late August and ended in September (think the US Open timetable).

By 1976, TV's role in the Olympics had been firmly established, as had the July/August schedule.  Since then, the Olympics have only taken place outside that window twice.  In 1988, when Seoul would've had to deal with the same situation as Tokyo had they not been later, and in 2000, when the Games were in Sydney and were actually held in the Australian spring.  The Rio Games were also in the Southern Hemisphere, but Rio's climate made holding those Olympics in Brazil's winter possible. 

NBC was the U.S. broadcaster in both 1988 and 2000.  In 1988, they were able to take advantage of the time difference and not disrupt their schedule too much (they just moved the premieres of their new shows a week later).  But, since they also had NFL coverage and many of their top football announcers were in Seoul for the Olympics, they had to bring in replacements.  NBC didn't have the NFL from 1998-2005, so they didn't have that problem in Sydney.

What am I getting at here?  Well, it's simple.  TV's influence over the Olympics makes it practically impossible to move the Games outside of that July/August window.  Not to mention the disruption it would cause to the regular season schedules of the various sports (as well as the athletes' training cycles)!

So July and August in Tokyo it is!  But the heat definitely poses a potential problem, for both athletes and spectators.  They've proposed various solutions, such as early/late starts for endurance events, misting stations along courses, some sort of heat-reducing roads that I don't quite understand but I'm sure they actually have since we're talking about Japan here, even keeping outdoor athletes inside until the last possible moment to limit their time in the conditions.

One proposal seems to make the most sense, though.  Daylight savings time.  Japan is one of the few countries that doesn't move its clocks ahead an hour during the summer months.  But Tokyo Olympic organizers have proposed adopting daylight savings time as a way of beating the heat.  The IOC has endorsed this idea, which would be good for TV, too, even though that's not the primary reason for their support. 

Most Japanese businesses are opposed, but the people seem to be OK with the idea, so we'll see how things ultimately end up with the daylight savings time thing.  It definitely does seem like the most logical solution, though.  Even if it's just an hour or two, that can make a big difference.  Especially since it's a safety issue. 

It just seems so obvious that Japan adopting daylight savings time is the smartest idea.  If it'll make the athletes and spectators at the 2020 Olympics more comfortable, how could they not to do it?

The Eternal Expanded Roster Debate

It happens every September.  Baseball rosters expand from 25 to 40, and most teams take advantage of the 15 extra roster spots by calling up a ton of relief pitchers and pinch hitters.  And, suddenly after playing under the same rules for five months, they're completely different for the final month, when the games are the most important (or completely irrelevant)!

This has been an issue in baseball for years, and people inevitably complain about it every September!  Yet, despite this, neither the players nor the owners seem to be in any sort of a rush to change things.  The owners like the opportunity to check out some of their younger players, while the Union likes the idea of getting those guys a month of Major League paychecks and service time.  

But that doesn't change the fact it makes no sense that they completely change the roster size for the final month of the season.  Football teams don't suddenly get 75 players for the season finale.  Basketball rosters don't increase to 18 so that LeBron can "rest" before the playoffs.  Yet in baseball, it's perfectly acceptable to go from having the standard seven or eight relievers suddenly become a 15-man bullpen!  (Since, you know, it's so typical for you to have five lefties in the bullpen!)

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of the expanded roster.  You wanna have a third catcher?  Go ahead.  Bring up a couple young guys to be pinch runners?  Be my guest.  Don't want to send somebody down to take someone else off the DL?  I get it!  Wait until September 1 and you don't have to.

Rather, my problem with the expanded rosters is the inequity it creates.  Some teams are more financially sound than others, meaning the Yankees or Dodgers or Red Sox can handle the increased salary burden better than teams like, say, the Royals or Reds.  In fact, here are the current roster sizes for those teams: Dodgers-36, Red Sox-36, Yankees-33 (which will become 35 when Judge and Chapman come back), Reds-31, Royals-31.  

Back when the Nationals were still the Expos and owned by Major League Baseball, the other 29 teams didn't want to pay any extra Montreal players, so they weren't allowed to call anybody up in September.  While in the wild card race!  Needless to say, the Expos missed the playoffs, and players on that team flat out said the fact that they weren't able to add anyone down the stretch was one of the reasons why they had a terrible September.

That leads me to another problem.  The playoff contenders are adding guys primarily as reinforcements, but, for the most part, they're still playing their main guys regularly.  They have to.  They're fighting for a playoff berth!  Sure, the Red Sox and Indians might give some of their starters a break after they clinch, but the Yankees and A's and all the NL teams are pretty much keeping their extra guys around purely for the ride.

Meanwhile, these contenders will be playing meaningful games against opponents that will be treating the same games as, essentially, Spring Training.  The Yankees play the Blue Jays and Orioles this week.  What do they have to play for?  So, while one team needs all the wins it can and will be playing its starters the whole way against a bunch of rookies.  That affects the integrity of the pennant race!  So does a team trotting out a different reliever for every batter because they've got 15 guys in the bullpen!  It's September!  Not Spring Training!

To me, there's a very simple compromise to be reached here.  Teams can still call up as many players as they want up to 40.  But they have to designate a "game roster."  I'll give a little leeway here, too.  Maybe the game roster is, say 28 instead of 25.  Regardless, the game roster is the same for both teams.  That's the key point here.  You don't have the playoff-contending, 36-player Dodgers taking on the out-of-it-since-June, 31-player Reds.

Certain restrictions would be placed on that "game roster", as well.  You have to declare at least three starting pitchers eligible (I'm talking actual starting pitchers, not that stupid crap the Rays do).  That way you can't just swap out your starter every game as a way of keeping a 12-man bullpen.  You can make your previous day's starter ineligible if you want, but another starter becomes active to replace him.  And if you want to make a reliever that threw 30 pitches the day before ineligible, go ahead.  (Yes, as I type this, I realize there are loopholes to this rule that teams would take advantage of, most likely in the form of those stupid "openers.")

Likewise, a guy gets a little banged up and you want to give him a couple days off, you have the ability to do so without putting yourselves down a player.  Same thing when Boston and Cleveland want to rest their starters in the final week.  Just make whoever you want to give the game off ineligible and you still have a full roster.

My suggestion isn't that out-of-the-box.  And there are a lot of people in the game who've proposed something similar.  And it makes sense.  It serves both purposes.  Teams that want to give their young guys a look can do that.  Meanwhile, teams fighting for a playoff berth can continue playing their starters in games that are as close to normal as they were for the previous five months of the season.

In the playoffs, rosters reset back to 25 anyway, but you can change them from series to series.  The Yankees and A's don't need four starting pitchers in the Wild Card Game.  Whoever wins will likely have two extra hitters in the Wild Card Game that they'll swap out for starters in the Division Series. 

Doing the same thing at the end of the regular season really wouldn't be much different.  They can change the roster from game to game.  They'll simply have 40 guys to choose from.  That keeps the purists happy by preserving the integrity of the pennant races, and it keeps the Union happy because all of those players accrue service time whether they're on the game roster or not.  It really is the best of both worlds.

The Double Standard In Tennis

I'm not going to defend Serena Williams for her meltdown in the US Open final.  It's not the first time it's happened, and each time it escalated because of her behavior.  Whether it's in the moment or whatever, Serena's definitely not the victim that she made herself out to be.  Had she kept her composure, she wouldn't have been docked a game by the chair umpire (more on that in a minute).

Her actions may have been wrong (and the reason the situation got out of hand).  Hence the $17,000 fine.  However, some of the points she made about there being a double standard in tennis weren't wrong.  And the WTA admitted as much!

One of the things Serena addressed had nothing to do with her, but it definitely illustrates the fact that there is absolutely a double standard in tennis.  In the first round (when it was about 95 degrees during the day), Alize Cornet of France realized her shirt was on backwards, so she went over to the corner of the court, took it off for two seconds and put it on the right way...and was promptly issued a warning for it!  Meanwhile, men's players change their shirts at changeovers all the time.  Yet when a woman does it, she gets a code violation.

It would've been one thing if Cornet was wearing a dress (like many women players do) and took that off while on the court.  But it's asinine to give her a warning for taking off her shirt and exposing her sports bra for two seconds.  Perish the thought!  I don't blame the chair umpire on that one.  He was simply following the rule as he understood it.  But the rule was idiotic and everyone knew it.  So they changed it on the fly the next day and announced that Cornet wouldn't face any sort of punishment.  They went so far as to say she did nothing wrong and didn't deserve the code violation.

Now let's shift to the women's final and Serena's showdown with chair umpire Carlos Ramos.  No one is disputing the second code violation for racket abuse.  That's very clear in the rule book and is a violation no matter who does it.  In this case, it just happened to be a second violation, which resulted in a point penalty and started getting her going.

The first code violation was for coaching.  Serena's coach, Patrick Mouratoglou, admitted that when Ramos warned her for receiving coaching, he was indeed giving her direction.  Whether or not Serena was actually looking at him at the time is a different question.  However, Mouratoglou also correctly pointed out that he wasn't doing anything different than any player's coach during a match.  Toni Nadal gave Rafa signals during the match all the time.  Yet Nadal never received a code violation for coaching.  So, if it happens all the time and you just let it go, why are you suddenly deciding to be a stickler?

Coaching has traditionally not been allowed during a match, but that's starting to change.  The WTA allows on-court coaching at a number of tournaments (including US Open qualifying I think).  Players are obviously allowed to receive coaching then, and there's a growing number of people who think it should be allowed at all times.  And if that's the case, maybe it's worth exploring a rule change.

Then there's the third violation, the verbal abuse that resulted in a game penalty.  Evidently what set Ramos off was when she called him a "thief" while talking about the point penalty at the 4-3 changeover.  And that's what really got Serena going on her little tantrum that's really pretty inexcusable for a 36-year-old mother.

However, here's where I take issue with the game penalty, is calling the chair umpire a "thief" really grounds for a verbal abuse violation.  Andy Roddick, James Blake, and a slew of other men's players past and present have admitted to calling chair umpires much worse and not receiving so much as a warning.  And need I remind you that John McEnroe and Andre Agassi were a tad fiery during their playing days?  So how is it verbal abuse when Serena Williams calls him a "thief," but not when a male player does it?

Billie Jean King, no stranger to controversy during her playing days, wrote an excellent op-ed piece in Sunday's Washington Post.  She didn't defend Serena's actions, but she did make it pretty clear that Serena seems to be treated differently and held to a different standard than other players.  She was also pretty direct in her criticism of Ramos.  And I must say I agree with Bille Jean's assessment that Ramos abused his power and made himself a part of the match, which is something an official should never do, regardless of the sport.

Contrast the Williams-Ramos situation to what happened in the men's second round.  Nick Kyrgios has a bit of a reputation for not always playing his hardest all the time.  He was going thru the motions on one of those ridiculously hot afternoons early in the tournament, and it really looked like he might retire from the match.  Then at one of the changeovers, the chair umpire gets out of the chair and has a little chat with Kyrgios, telling him things like "I want to help you.  I know this is not you."  Do I really need to tell you how inappropriate that is?

And, of course, let's not forget the controversy surrounding another Grand Slam tournament.  Just before the start of the US Open, the President of the French Tennis Federation said that outfits like the catsuit Serena wore at this year's French Open would be banned moving forward.  Yet no such rule dictating what the men are and aren't allowed to wear.  (This isn't like Wimbledon with its long-standing and controversy-free all-white dress code, either.)  Even the comments associated with the decision screamed sexism.  In response, Serena wore a tutu in her first round match. 

None of this, of course, changes the fact that Serena Williams is a 23-time Grand Slam champion and arguably the greatest women's player in history.  But it's sad that this has overshadowed the performance of newly-minted US Open champion Naomi Osaka and her well-deserved victory.

Osaka had her Grand Slam moment taken away from her by this controversy.  The crowd was booing during her victory ceremony.  They weren't booing her, but it sure felt like it.  And that's just wrong.  Naomi Osaka did nothing other than play the match of her life against her idol to become a Grand Slam champion.  Can we start talking about that now please?

Week 1, NFL 2018

So, here we are. The NFL's 99th season is upon us.  In a lot of ways, it seems like it's been forever since the Eagles upset the Patriots in the Super Bowl.  And in a lot of ways, it seems like last season just ended.  Yet here we go again, as my Sundays and Thursday nights will be accounted for from now until the first week of February.

And the return of the NFL means, of course, the return of my weekly picks.  For those of you who are new to this exercise, a few rules first.  The big one is that I only pick the winner.  The spread has no bearing on who actually wins and loses the game, thus it's irrelevant to me.  The second is that while I will pick the Thursday night game each week, the pick blog normally won't be posted until before the Sunday games.  The only exceptions to this rule are Week 1 and Thanksgiving.

With that, here we go with the first installment of the Joe Brackets NFL picks for the 2018 season...

Falcons at Eagles: Philadelphia-The Eagles take the Super Bowl winner's accustomed role as the home team in the Thursday night opener, against the NFC champion from two years ago and a favorite by many to be the conference's representative this season.  Philadelphia will start Nick Foles, which only seems right for the Super Bowl MVP on the night the banner is raised.  This is a tough matchup for the opener--it usually is--but I don't think the Eagles let the occasion get the better of them.

Steelers at Browns: Pittsburgh-Ready for my first bold prediction of the season?  Here it is...the Browns will win more games this season than the last two years combined!  I realize this isn't hard, but for a team that's 1-31 over the last two seasons, those two (or dare I say three?) wins will feel like progress.  Unfortunately one won't come in the opener.  The Steelers extend their rivals' losing streak to 18 consecutive games, one shy of Cleveland's 0-16 brethren, the 2007-09 Lions.

Bengals at Colts: Cincinnati-Two of the biggest underachievers in football square off, meaning one of them has to not lose!  Andrew Luck will evidently actually make a start for the Colts.  How much of a difference will that make in Frank Reich's first game as Indy's coach?  Probably not much.  Even though Marvin Lewis has overstayed his welcome in Cincinnati, his 16th season will begin with a win.

Titans at Dolphins: Tennessee-Speaking of new head coaches, Mike Vrabel takes over in Nashville.  How will the Titans follow up on their playoff run from a season ago?  Very well, I think.  The Titans absolutely look capable of making a return to the postseason.  As for the Dolphins, they don't.  Tennessee gets the road win to start the year.

49ers at Vikings: Minnesota-Last season, everything went right for the Vikings until it all fell apart in the NFC Championship Game.  They did this with three different starting quarterbacks, mind you, none of whom are still on the roster.  Instead, it's Kirk Cousins under center in Minnesota now.  San Francisco knows the difference a quarterback can make.  When they got Brady Jr. last December, they were 1-10.  Then they won their final five games.  They're a team to watch out for this season.  They're not winning the opener in Minnesota, though.

Texans at Patriots: New England-There will eventually come a time when the New England Patriots don't win 12 games every season and automatically make the AFC Championship Game.  Who knows?  It might even be this year (although probably not).  Houston is actually a tough matchup for the Patriots when all of the Texans' key players are healthy, which, amazingly, they currently are!  It'll be a game, but Bradicheck will find a way, giving themselves an early potential playoff tiebreaker.

Buccaneers at Saints: New Orleans-What?!  An NFC South division game in September?!  I didn't know such a thing existed!  I feel for the Bucs.  They're not a bad team.  They're just overmatched in a division that had three playoff teams last season.  The NFC South should be just as competitive this season.  The Saints came a miracle play away from last year's NFC title game.  They want to show that they belong there.  And that'll start with a win over Tampa Bay.

Jaguars at Giants: Giants-Good news regarding both of these teams!  The Giants have a running game now!  And it's not possible for them to be as bad as they were in 2017, is it?  Meanwhile, the most exciting news in the entire NFL this offseason is that the Jaguars finally ditched those stupid two-tone helmets!  Now they look like an actual professional football team.  And coming off an AFC Championship Game appearance, it happened just in time.  It also means that they're not gonna sneak up on anyone anymore, though.  They'll get everybody's best week in and week out.  And a Giants team that has something to prove is a dangerous opener for them.

Bills at Ravens: Baltimore-Last season, an Andy Dalton touchdown pass with like 30 seconds left in the Bengals-Ravens season finale put Buffalo in the playoffs at Baltimore's expense.  The NFL clearly has a sense of humor, because who do they schedule against each other in the opener?  Why it's the Bills and Ravens of course!  Baltimore has had six months to think about missing the playoffs.  They'll take it out on the team that got in instead of them.

Chiefs at Chargers: Chargers-Kansas City has been the top dog in the AFC West for a few seasons, but a lot of people are picking the Chargers this year.  And I can see why.  That's a good team down there in SoCal.  They'll get a chance to make an early statement by taking on Kansas City in the opener.  Expect that statement to be made, as new Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes struggles in his debut.

Seahawks at Broncos: Denver-Believe it or not, it's been five years since these former division rivals met in the Super Bowl.  A lot has changed for both teams since then.  Seattle missed the playoffs last season and is just about in a full-fledged rebuild.  Denver, meanwhile, hasn't made the playoffs since winning Super Bowl 50.  The Broncos still have the defense.  They just haven't had the offense to go with it since Peyton Manning retired.  Enter former Bronco Case Keenum, one of the 2017 Vikings QBs who's now starting somewhere else.  I have a feeling his first game in an orange jersey will be a good one.

Redskins at Cardinals: Washington-Much like the Seahawks, Arizona is entering a full-blown rebuild mode.  This is going to be a long season in the desert.  I'm not saying things will be much better in DC.  The Redskins are in much better shape than the Cardinals, though.  Alex Smith couldn't have picked a better team for his reintroduction to the NFC.  He played the Cardinals twice a year with the 49ers, and the familiar opponent will make the cross-country trip well worth it.

Cowboys at Panthers: Dallas-Dallas lost its two biggest receiving weapons in Jason Witten and Dez Bryant, yet I have faith that the Cowboys will rebound after missing the playoffs last season.  Carolina's whirlwind of an offseason is finally over, and the Panthers can finally take the field for the first time under their new ownership.  It's sounds silly to say in Week 1, but this game could have big playoff implications.  And I just have a feeling Dallas will come out on top.

Bears at Packers: Green Bay-NFC moved its traditional Giants at Cowboys Sunday night opener to Week 2 so that they could showcase the NFL's oldest rivalry instead.  In fact, this is the Packers' 100th season, so it's only fitting that they open it at Lambeau against Chicago.  It's also odd that Green Bay missed the playoffs last season.  Aaron Rodgers sure remembers that.  And I can see him going off in the opener, his first game since December, as a result.

Jets at Lions: Detroit-For some reason, Jets-Lions is the first half of the Monday night doubleheader (hey, I don't make the schedule).  It is Sam Darnold's NFL debut and the Lions are kinda fun to watch, but is this really a marquee game?  Anyway.  A bit of a coin flip here.  With the game taking place at Ford Field, I'm going with the Lions.

Rams at Raiders: Rams-Jon Gruden on Monday Night Football.  That's nothing new.  Where he'll be during the game is a little different, though.  For the first time in 10 years, he's roaming an NFL sideline.  And for the first time in 17 years, that sideline is in Oakland.  The Raiders open what could be their final season by the Bay against the team they shared Hollywood with for 13 years.  The Rams are a really good team.  Better than the Raiders.  Gruden's probably got something in his back of tricks, but I still say the Rams end up on top.

2018 NFC Preview

What I said about the AFC the other day I could essentially just copy and paste, change "AFC" to "NFC" and call it a day.  Because there are about 10 teams that realistically could make an argument that they expect to be in the playoffs, with about six of those believing they have a good chance to win the NFC title.  And, after the Vikings came up a game short of doing it last year, a good number of people believe the Falcons might finally be that team that plays a Super Bowl in its home stadium.

Last year's playoffs are actually a perfect example of how you can never predict what's gonna happen in the NFC.  Five of the six playoff teams, including all four division winners, were different than in 2016, which means 11 different teams have made the playoffs in the last two seasons (13 in three years).  The only teams missing from that list are the Bears, Bucs and 49ers, while the only one to repeat is Atlanta, hence the confidence in the Falcons heading into the 2018 campaign.

There's also plenty of confidence in Philadelphia.  With good reason.  The Eagles won the Super Bowl with their backup quarterback, and they have an incredibly strong team returning.  How will they follow up their championship?  Will there be Wentz/Foles drama?  And let's not forget, this team plays in the NFC East.  Even in a down year, just getting out of the division is brutal.

Dallas missed the playoffs last season, but I don't think anyone would be surprised to see the Cowboys return to the postseason.  They'll need a deep threat now that Dez Bryant is gone.  But they're still good enough to contend for a wild card, if not the division title.  Then there's the Giants, who can't possibly have as bad a season as they did last year.  And, now that they have Saquon Barkley, they actually have a running game for the first time in years.  Washington, meanwhile, is looking up at the rest of the division.

It's weird to say that the Green Bay Packers didn't just not win the NFC North last season, they missed the playoffs entirely!  I'd expect their time on the sidelines to be short, however.  A healthy Aaron Rodgers can carry Green Bay, and if the entire team is healthy, the Packers will reassume their place as an NFC favorite.

What does Minnesota have for an encore after last year's incredible run?  Don't forget, the Vikings lost three different quarterbacks to free agency...and replaced them with Kirk Cousins!  Minnesota could definitely return to the playoffs.  The Bears' trade for Khalil Mack suddenly made them a lot more relevant.  They're still not a playoff team, but they may manage to get out of the NFC North cellar, although Detroit could surprise us and actually challenge for the playoffs.

The most competitive division in football might once again be the NFC South.  Atlanta is a popular choice, and it's easy to see why.  The Falcons are just as loaded as they were when they should've won the Super Bowl two years ago.  If they get off to a good start (unlike last season), they should be the division favorites.  If not, they might struggle just to get a wild card.  This division is that tight.

New Orleans and Carolina are ready to pounce if the Falcons stumble at all.  Personally, I think the Panthers are the slightly better team, but you've got to wonder if all their off-the-field drama during the offseason will impact their play on it.  Which is why I'd say the Saints are more likely to snag a wild card berth.  Either way, I see them both finishing in 10-6/9-7 territory.  Then there's the Tampa Bay Bucs, who'd be a borderline playoff team if they played in any other division.  As it is, 7-9 is probably the best they can hope for in a division with those three teams.

Out West, meanwhile, the change that started last year will become even more pronounced this season.  After years of Seahawk domination, Seattle is entering a rebuilding era.  They're also rebuilding in Arizona, where Carson Palmer has retired.  And the 49ers have gone from a pushover to a potential playoff team.  There's never been more hype around a team that had one win at Thanksgiving of the previous season.  But that's what getting a franchise quarterback and winning your final five games can do for you.

You've still gotta consider the LA Rams the favorites in the NFC West this season.  Last season was just the beginning.  They've got Jared Goff and Todd Gurley on offense, with Aaron Donald anchoring the defensive side of the ball.  This is a GOOD team.  And they'll look a lot better, too, since the NFL gave them permission to wear their 1980s throwbacks at pretty much every home game.  No more gold numbers on the jerseys and white horns on the helmets!  Now if they would just go back to the throwbacks full-time.  That's the real LA Rams uniform.

Even making preseason playoff picks is a crap shoot in the NFC.  I could easily see none of the six teams I'm about to mention making the playoffs.  However, I'm going with the Eagles, Packers, Falcons and Rams as the division winners, and the Vikings and Panthers as the wild cards.  As much as I want to jump on board with Atlanta, I think the pressure will get to them and the Falcons will lay an egg in the playoffs.  I'm saying Eagles-Packers in the NFC title game, with Philadelphia returning to Super Bowl.

In an all-Pennsylvania Super Bowl, the Eagles will face the Steelers in Atlanta.  I think the Eagles meet the same fate as the Seahawks in their second straight Super Bowl, though.  I don't mean the idiotic play call that results in a game-clinching interception.  But I do mean the loss.  I'm taking the Pittsburgh Steelers to win Super Bowl LIII exactly 10 years after their last title.

2018 AFC Preview

Well, it's September.  Which means it's football season.  And it should be an interesting one.  Especially after last season, when the Jaguars, Titans and Bills all made the playoffs.  Was it a one-year thing or was it the start of something?  And how about the AFC West?  Will the Chargers live up to the hype?  How will Jon Gruden's return impact the Raiders?

There is one thing about the AFC that we can probably write in ink, though.  The Patriots will once again win the AFC East.  I have no idea how good New England is in comparison to the rest of the conference.  I never do.  It doesn't matter.  They haven't gotten any competition for the division title in years, and that's not going to change this season.  Their sights are solely focused on getting back to the Super Bowl for the third straight year, the fourth time in five seasons, and the ninth time in the Bradicheck Era.

As for the other three teams in the East, I don't know, the Jets? suck the least.  And I say that only because I think they're making the right move in going with Sam Darnold as the starter from day one.  If you want him to be your QB of the future, let him get in there and take his lump.  And don't pull a Jets and pull him at the first sign of trouble.  The Bills ended the longest playoff drought in sports last season, but they already look primed to break it down and build it back up again, so don't expect a return trip.  The Dolphins, meanwhile, don't really seem to have an identity.  They could have a completely injury-free season, end up 10-6 and get a wild card.  Or one thing could go wrong, everything else starts to snowball, and they finish 5-11.  I can see either happening.

If there's one team in the AFC that seems capable of topping the Patriots, it's the Pittsburgh Steelers.  In fact, this might be the best team in the AFC.  They just need to avoid Jacksonville, who surprisingly gives them all sorts of trouble.  But the Steelers had the AFC's No. 1 seed last season locked up until that controversial no-catch ruling late in their game against New England (we can thank that game for them revising the catch rule so it finally now makes sense!).  Who knows how different things would've turned out had that play not been overturned?

Pittsburgh won't back off the gas pedal one game this season.  Because they know how important it'll be to finish ahead of the Patriots and get home field.  Which is bad news for the rest of the AFC North.  Baltimore's window is closing.  This might be the last time the Ravens contend for the playoffs with this current group.  Cincinnati should've fired Marvin Lewis after last season and will be paying for their decision to retain him all year.

The Browns, meanwhile, might be the most intriguing team in all of football.  This is a team that is 1-31 over the past two seasons and is coming off just the second 0-16 season in NFL history.  Yet there's so much hype surrounding them you'd think they were a playoff team!  I get it, the Browns were better than their record last season, and they've only gotten better.  My not-so-bold prediction about Cleveland is that they'll win more games this season than the last two years combined.  Beyond that, though, they might actually be watchable this year.

Moving over to the AFC South, which is suddenly one of the most competitive divisions in football.  You could make a legitimate case for any of three different teams as the favorites in this division.  Jacksonville, of course, made that unlikely run to the AFC Championship Game last season and is out to prove they'll be a contender for years to come.  The Titans were a wild card team last year, and they're also desperate to show they're a year-to-year contender after a decade of irrelevance.

I think the best team in the AFC South is the Texans, though.  Houston's fortunes, seemingly more than any other team, relies on the health of its stars.  When their key guys are healthy, the Texans are a playoff team.  When they're not, they go 4-12.  I'm gonna bank on J.J. Watt and DeShaun Watson remaining healthy.  Which means the Texans should be the team to beat in the AFC South.

Speaking of teams that have been sunk by injuries, Andrew Luck will start in Week 1 for the first time since October 2016.  The Colts aren't a good team with him.  They'll be at best .500 and maybe have an outside shot at a wild card.  But without him, they're bottom-feeders.

Then there's the AFC West, a division full of intriguing storylines.  The Chargers still don't have any fans and still don't want to be in Los Angeles.  Yet they might win the division.  That is unless the Chiefs continue their recent run as the division's top dogs.  Or Jon Gruden's return to Oakland brings the Silver & Black back to the glory days.  Or Denver's offense is good enough for that awesome defense to bring the Broncos back to the playoffs for the first time since they won the Super Bowl three years ago.

My pick in the AFC West is Kansas City.  Not that I don't believe in the Chargers.  I do.  In fact, I think they'll get a wild card.  But Andy Reid has proven time and again that he's one of the top coaches in the game.  He always has his team ready, and they'll win one key game that'll prove to be the difference in a tight division battle with (Should Be In) San Diego.

Meanwhile, the Chiefs' longtime rivals in Oakland made quite a splash by bringing Jon Gruden back as head coach after 15 years away.  Will he turn it around overnight?  No.  But he's not expected to.  His job is to mold the Raiders in his image as they prepare to make a splash when they move to Las Vegas in 2020.  I wouldn't be totally surprised if Gruden puts them back in the playoffs.  But I have a lot of questions, too (like why are you trading Khalil Mack?), so I can't completely trust the process.

Denver is in a better position than it was at this time last season.  The Broncos need to figure out their quarterback situation, though.  That's been a revolving door since Peyton Manning retired, and nobody they've plugged in there has managed to do the job.  Which is a waste.  Because Von Miller and that incredible defense don't need much to keep them in every game, but the offense needs to do its part too.

So who are my AFC playoff teams?  Well, New England obviously.  But I'm going with Pittsburgh, Houston and Kansas City as the other three division winners.  My wild card teams are the Chargers and Jaguars.  It's a conference rule that the Patriots play in the AFC Championship Game, but who'll be their opponent?  How about the team that I consider to be the best in the AFC?  That's right.  The Pittsburgh Steelers.  They beat New England in the AFC Championship Game and head to their fourth Super Bowl of the Ben Roethlisberger Era.